The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-01-21
TRIAL OF M'GIFFIN.
Additional Testimony for the Prose-
cutiOn-The Case is Continued Till
TO.daY-A nefncfIEe.s Evidence


for hearing before the Chief Justice il
term yesterday morning, and lasted un
til nearly p. M, the foreign jury being
impaneled. The indictment charges the
defendants with larceny in the second
degree, and a second count is that of re-
ceiVing stolen property. The property
in question consists of the sum of 1896
in notes, and is alleged to have been
taken out of a drawer of the safe in the
Office of NJ. w. McChesney & Sons, Queen
street, on the 22d October last. The
first named defendant, who is lad OF 10
pleaded guilty to the first count, and not
guilty TO the second, in which latter a
nolle pros. was yesterday entered by the
prosecution before entering upon the
case. The other defendant pleaded not
guilty to both counts.
His Excellency Antoine Rosa appeared
for the Crown. Mr.. l.. A. Thurston was
engaged by the father OF the younger de-
PENDANT to watch the case in the interest
of his son, and if necessary to assist the
prosecution of the elder defendant
Messrs. A. G.. Smith and Chas Creigh-
ton appeared for McGiffin.
A motion by McGifin's counsel to
quash the Indictment was overruled, the
grounds OF the motion being, first, that
it did not properly and distinctly allege
the two separate counts; second, that
the second count did not charge the
offense Of receiving stolen goods, being
merely a reiteration of the charge of lar
ceny.
The trial OF McGiffin was then pro-
ceeded with, the first witness called be-
ing Henry McChesney. Mr.. Creighton
objected to his being called, as, he being
the principal in the case, to him
would attach the greatest infamy if Nc
Giffin were found guilty. After argu
ments, the objection was everruled.
An objection was also noted to the APP
pearance of Mr.. Thurston in the capacity
in which he was present.
Henry McChesney was then examined
by the Attorney General, substantially
reiterating his statement in the Police
Court. He described how he took the
notes out of the safe drawer when his
brother Edwards back was momentarily
turned, slipping them into his waistcoat
pocket and sitting quietly reading the
paper, when the brother again entered
the office, with the view of averting sus
picion. He explained how he had been
induced to commit the theft, McGiffin
having made proposals to him to do SO,
that the two might afterwards make
their way either to Hongkong or Aus
tralia. He detailed his several meetings
with McGiffin and the precautions which
the latter adopted to avoid them being
seen together, and stated the circum-
stances of his handing McGifin the
money in the lumber yard, at the same
time telling him how he came by it.
The loss of the money was not discovered
until the next morning, and suspicion
witness), who confessed it on being
questioned by his father, who told him
he would put him in the Station House
until be got the money. Witness then
did his utmost to get the money back,
but McGiffin put him off. Witness de-
tailed his several interviews with Nc
Giffin relative to this matter, those at
the Station House corresponding in the
main with the account given by a sub
sequent witness, who overheard them.
E. J. McChesney, brother of the last
witness, whose temporary absence af-
forded the opportunity for the theft, was
the next witness, and he was followed
by II. NJ. McChesney, the father, who tes-
titled that the money belonged to the firm
of which he was a member. He stated
that he himself had key of the safe,
his nephew another and his son Edward
another. The latter was cross-examined
at some length, but the testimony did
not materially differ from the version
given by Henry McChesney.
Several other witnesses on points of
detail were introduced, among them one
Charles A. Reynolds, an Agent of the
Board of Health, who also held a COM
mission in the police force. He stated
that he had overheard a conversation
between the two defendants in the
Deputy Marshal's Office on the Path of
October He was in a small closet
leading into that apartment. Neither
of the defendants knew that he was
there.
Mr.. Creighton objected to this evidence,
stigmatizing the witness action Gas
keyhole detective work" and playing
the eavesdropper. The objection was
overruled, and the witness, proceeding,
stated that the door of the closet was
wide open, but that he was in the dark
and could not be seen. McChesney
pleaded with McGiffin to tell him where
the money was, as his parents felt the
disgrace more than the loss of the
money. He said: eff you will tell, [
will take all the blame on myself and
get you off as easy as possible" McGiff1n
said he was already on his trial then,
and it was too late. At subsequent
time witness overheard a similar con-
verSatiOn betwaen them unknown to